Personal Development Plan

Organizations have been looking for human resources tools that encourage knowledge workers to maintain and improve their expertise (Ericsson, 2006). With respect to the latter, tools such as 360-degree feedback, self- and/or peer assessment and personal development plans (PDPs) have been argued to be successful in stimulating learning and development (Evans, 2002). However, the small amount of often contrasting evidence has shown that implementing these tools does not guarantee effectiveness in terms of fostering employees’ learning and development and, in turn, advancing their performance (Austin, Marini, and Desroches 2005; Beausaert, 2011). In order to make the tools effective, they have to be facilitated by various supporting conditions (Beausaert, 2011). PDPs are increasingly implemented as a learning tool in assessment cycles, consisting of development-, follow-up- and performance appraisal interviews (Beausaert, 2011)

The personal development plan can be characterized as a tool that: (Beausaert, 2011)

• Gives an overview of the competencies the employee worked on in the past and the competencies the employee is planning to work on in the future
• Is composed and written by the employee himself (self-direction by the employee) although the structure of the PDP is mostly set
• Is used as a basis/structure for conversations with the supervisor or coach who provides the employee with feedback and stimulates the employee’s reflection
• Serves as a decision-making tool, from planning an individual training programme to assessing the suitability of a promotion.

 

 Figure 01 - Hypothetical model for the effect of the personal development plan

As shown in figure 01 in the personal development plan, six major questions are put forward: ‘Where am I now”?’, ‘Where do I want to be”?’, ‘How do I get there”?’ ‘What support do I need”?, Why have/haven’t I achieved”?, and “How did I do”? (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). When a discrepancy is detected between the competencies an employee possesses and the competencies the employee is required to possess, it suggests that learning needs to be stimulated. This indicates that the core purpose of the personal development plan is to support the development of the professional in order to improve his/her performance (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). A distinction has commonly been established between professional development and certification/selection/accountability (Smith and Tillema, 2001). When a PDP is used to support development, learning and receiving feedback takes a central part. Conversely, when a PDP is used for certification, presenting oneself is more important (Bunker and Leggett, 2004).

The personal development plan is an instrument that requires ‘an idealized type of individual who knows how to self-reflect, is open to change, interested in her/his own development and knows how to organize her/ himself and her/his environment to support learning (Austin, Marini, and Desroches, 2005). Reflection is considered a key element in professional development. Reflection signifies a critical analysis of previous experiences and aims at intensifying cognitive elaboration on those experiences; ideally, it leads to behavioural changes in due course (Anseel, Lievens, and Schollaert, 2009). In other words, reflecting provides insight into the employee’s processes of learning (McMullan et al. 2003). This process of individual learning can best be explained by referring to Kolb’s model of experiential learning, in which reflection on personal experiences plays a central role (Kolb, 1984).

Transparency is a key feature of any assessment practice. This implies that supervisors provide their employees with an explicit and clear purpose, a formal framework (including meetings), specific guidelines and standards or criteria (Noe, 1996). In addition to providing transparent information, feedback plays a crucial role in stimulating PDP users to undertake learning activities and to develop their competencies (Maurer, Mitchell, and Barbeite, 2002). Feedback gives information about the employee’s work with the purpose of improving learning and performance (Shute, 2008). The importance of providing employees with non-threatening performance feedback, this means that the feedback focuses on the employee’s tasks, giving constructive suggestions on what might be needed or changed to better fulfil the task’s goals (Gibbs and Simpson 2004). Feedback focuses on the employee’s performance behaviour and learning and not on the employee as a person or on how his/her performance compares with that of colleagues (Tillema and Smith, 2000). If employees are able to link the feedback to their performance and the supervisor’s expectations of their performance, the feedback will be meaningful and employee effort will increase (Gibbs and Simpson 2004). In contrast, by focusing on the individual or comparing the employee with his/her colleagues, the employee’s motivation and self-efficacy are undermined, which is undesirable since the latter is related to the employee’s effort and task persistence (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004).

References:

• Anseel, F., F. Lievens, and E. Schollaert. 2009, "Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110: p. 23–35

• Austin, Z., A. Marini, and B. Desroches., 2005, "Use of a learning portfolio for continuous professional development", A study of pharmacists in Ontario (Canada). Pharmacy Education 5: p. 175–81

• Beausaert, S., M. Segers, J. van der Rijt, and W. Gijselaers., 2011, "The use of personal development plans in the workplace", A literature review. In Building learning experiences in a changing world, Advances in Business Education and Training III, ed

• Bunker, A., and M. Leggett. 2004. Being wise about teaching portfolios: Exploring the barriers to their development and maintenance

• Ericsson, A., N., 2006, "Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

• Evans, A., 2002, "The effectiveness of personal education plans in CPD", An evaluation. Medical Teacher 24: p. 79–84

• Gibbs, G., and C. Simpson., 2004, "Does your assessment support your student’s learning?" Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: p. 3–21

• Hattie, J., and H. Timperley., 2007, "The power of feedback", Review of Educational Research 77: p. 81–112

• Kolb, D.A., 1984, "Experiential learning", Chicago: Prentice Hall

• Maurer, T.J., D.R.D. Mitchell, and F.G. Barbeite. 2002. Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75: 87–107

• Noe, R.A., 1996, "Is career management related to employee development and performance?" Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: p. 119–33

• Shute, V.J., 2008, "Focus on formative feedback", Review of Educational Research 78: p. 153–89

• Smith, K., and H. Tillema., 1998, "Evaluating portfolio use as a learning tool for professionals", Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 42: p. 193–205

• Tillema, H.H., and K. Smith., 2000, "Learning from portfolios", Differential use of feedback in portfolio construction, Studies in Educational Evaluation 26: p. 193–210